Julio and Jane

I recently purchased a copy of the Final Call1 and discovered an article in it regarding a woman in California who accused a man of raping her by pretending to be her lover. The man apparently entered her room where she was in bed and engaged in the act and she apparently was “confused” but was with it until the light flashed across her eyes and she realized that wasn’t her lover. In fact according to court records,

“He said that he had kissed her and that she kissed him back, but he thought she might still be asleep. He pulled down her pajama bottoms, got on top of her, and started to have sex. He said she probably thought he was her boyfriend, and when she realized he was not, she started screaming.”2

Well, this guy got off so far; why? – Because she wasn’t married, so she was (as one local minister here puts it) — Not covered. She was not protected from being raped by an impostor who ‘got some’ by pretending to be her lover because she wasn’t married to her lover. In other words, the rational here is that in California you are not supposed to be having sex unless you are married, and so since she was violating that edict, she couldn’t ask the State to protect her from any body else who was getting their goings-on while she was with it or even “unconscious”. In fact another part of the same court document included the following in the defense version of events:

“He tried to wake Jane up by nudging her again, but she did not move. He thought she was attractive, so he kissed her on the cheek. She turned toward him, and they kissed some more…he did not try to reinsert his penis after he pulled out of her.”

In the discussion portion the court articulated:

“…fraud in the inducement takes place when the defendant makes misrepresentations to the victim in order to get her consent for a particular act, and then proceeds to carry out that very act. [Citations omitted.] In that situation, courts have historically been reluctant to impose criminal liability on the defendant since the victim consented to the particular act performed, albeit under false pretenses.”

In effect what the court leaned on was that he induced her to have sex under false pretenses but he is not liable for the outcome — the sex, because she obliged (and she is not married). You have to read the report, but to keep it simple for those of us here in DC let me put it this way — its like asking the government to protect you because somebody stole your crack while pretending to be your drug supplier. You’re not covered because buying crack is against the law. Never mind that the thief threw the crack pipe back (…he did not try to reinsert his penis after he pulled out…) and walked out the crack house door!

So what’s the relevance?

If the courts misrepresent themselves to me as my Government and I fall for that bullshit while they are not identifying themselves to me, and I comply with all these courts at their urging, inducement, whatever, while I call myself a citizen of the United States, they are not held responsible when they abuse my rights that I claim to have while leaning on the Constitution of the United States of America as I know it, especially if I suspect they may not be holding up that Constitution; (…confused…She turned toward him and they kissed some more…). Now for DC residents who keep crying for their own state, whereby they reject their own identities as residents of Maryland, how much less are they covered when they go to these courts asking for protection of their rights while sleeping with the DC“WE WANT STATEHOOD”“Government”?

The bottom line is if the courts and judges cannot admit to me that they are upholding the Constitution of the United States as we the public know of it, either when we ask for that verification in a pending case or when we submit a Freedom of Information Act request then something is wrong and they are misrepresenting themselves to us. Each and every one of them suddenly becomes a “Julio”, and each and every one of us suddenly becomes a “Jane”.